Thank you for your feedback. I do not believe I am making any
confusion but I should rephrase otherwise for the sake of clarity.
(Again English is not my native language so expressing consensual
terminology in english is difficult to me. As Fabian PASCAL declared
"commitment" to precise terminology is crucial into abording relational
model matters).

First, I make a clear distinction between SQL and its current
proprietary implementations(DB2, ORACLE, SQL Server...). As you know,
several features specified in standard (SQL92) have not been
implemented, creating lots of overhead work at applicative level into
guaranteing integrity at physical implementation time (ex:create table)
which makes SQL implementations and therefore SQL DBMS's unefficient.
Of course, there is no better alternative as SQL based systems are
still the best we have.

Second, I make a clear distinction between SQL tables *as implemented
currently* and relvars (called also R-tables). On that standpoint, I
do not see how are current *physical* implementations of SQL are
multidimensional when all the ones I know (but I only know the main
exposed above) use direct image storage of tuple physical
implementation.(totally defeating relational independence between
logical and physical layer). So I am curious to why, presicely you are
saying that a SQL table is multidimensional. My guess is that you are
refering to what SQL should be as opposed as to how it is implemented.
On that case, I agree with that statement. On the opposite case

Third, the hidden agenda of this thread is to focus discussion on
in-memory logic projection of relvars assuming total independence
between disk based storage and representation of R-Tables at runtime.
As you also know current SQL implementations (and SQL implemented
tables) are direct projection of physically static (generally
bidimensional) representation of tuples. On such perspective, the
little education I have about OO mechanisms encourages me to seek
discussion with OO audience to educate myself about possibilities OO
can offer to drive a better relational implementation.

So no. I do not believe what I am writing is nonsense. So I will
stick to what I have declared previously. Do not hesitate to
contradict me if you believe I missed some points. Thank you for your
implication in this thread.

Bob Badour wrote:
> Cimode wrote:> > One of the main current flaws of current SQL DBMS systems is their> > incapability to implement the multidimensionality of relvars.>> With all due respect, what you wrote is nonsense. An SQL table of degree> N (ie. with N columns) has N dimensions.Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 06:46:37 CDT